PLAYER57832 wrote:HOWEVER, giving people more money, which they will then spend, IS a very good way to boost the economy and pay more wages.... that, by=the-way is the dirty secret behind why there has been no serious reform to welfare and the like.. becuase too many businesses depend upon that money, either directly (grocers take food stamps just like cash, landlords are happy for a reliable section 8/HUD payment) and indirect (these subsidies allow employers to hire people for lower wages without huge protests).

Of course people earning more money through job changes or raises is helpful to the economy, but only if it's done in a free market system. When you use the government to mandate those raises, you're artificially increasing the cost of doing business, which means the businesses must inflate their prices in order to pay for those raises. Which ultimately means that people will end up only buying the things they were buying before the raise and you'll be demanding the government give them another pay raise. Stop inflation and you'll address the problems; raising minimum wage just exacerbates the problems.

PLAYER57832 wrote:There is a world of difference between a professional looking for a new professional job, with nationwide contacts and a low wage worker with no contacts trying for just about any job to pay the rent. Your insistance that the abilities of each is the same or that someone not being of the professional class means its prefectly OK for them to just live on the street... which IS what would happen if government assistance were cut.

Actually, you're the one who wants to insist that they are the same by using the government to mandate wages. Jobs aren't equal, so it's not the government's job to equal out the pay. There will always be jobs that pay a small amount because they are for people who just need part time work and don't need specialized skills. Legislating those jobs away through artificial pay increases only harms the economy and everybody of every wage.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You like to pick on me,

That's only because you keep complaining about how tough you have it and how you have to rely on the government to mandate that everyone else take care of you. Maybe if you relied on yourself and your family to take care of yourselves instead of using the government to mandate that I provide for you, we wouldn't have this problem. Why do others have to work to provide for both themselves and you?

That's only because you keep complaining about how tough you have it and how you have to rely on the government to mandate that everyone else take care of you. Maybe if you relied on yourself and your family to take care of yourselves instead of using the government to mandate that I provide for you, we wouldn't have this problem. Why do others have to work to provide for both themselves and you?

Because from PLAYER's perspective a life of not having the state coerce others' into giving her and her family additional income is not fair. To her, it's justified because she/her family have some genetic problem which makes their insurance/medical bills relatively more expensive than other people's. Of course, she'll buff out that coercion with an invisible social contract and wax it with a good helping of Redistributive Justice.

(She may change tactics since I mentioned this regular angle of hers, so let's see what happens).

You know, that's the real underlying cause of most of our problems as a society, the debasement and destruction of our currency. The very medium which assigns a value to our sweat, our ideas and our lives.

That's why until we finally use something other than a debt based currency, there are no fixes for our problems. We have to fix that first and then we'll have a real chance at addressing all the other problems.

Of course, there are too many people who rely on such a system to keep power and use that power to keep the rest of us divided enough to never amass the support, knowledge and wisdom to finally throw off the shackles of economic slavery. Too many are too comfortable and too familiar with their chains.....

Night Strike wrote: Moving around in this country has never been easier. Do you REALLY think it was easier to find a job elsewhere and move 20, 50, or 100 years ago?

No it's not, but that is a technical problem as a result of home ownership and the current underwater state of many home mortgages. Even before the crash it wasn't always easy to sell a house on short notice and move. Back in the 19th century a "gold rush" would result in a mass migration of people across the continent.

That was Nightstrike you quoted, not me.. made the correction.

However, there is a LOT more than home mortgages involved in moving. Note that "owning my homw" was not one of the factors, because I could easily rent out my house.

... and you have to remember that home ownership provides a lot of benefits that are now too often dismissed. Everything from the fact that kids who live in homes their families own tend to do better in school to better community support and involvement from home-owners, etc... etc.

tzor wrote:Consider the following fact: The North Dakota unemployment rate was 3.2% in December 2012.

If "moving around in this country has never been easier" you would see a massive migration of people to that state and the unemployment rate would at least rise to the "full employment" level of 5%.

That is not to say that people aren't moving in to the state, they are but compare this to the California Gold Rush ...

In 1848 before the discovery of gold, California had a population of some 12,000 Mexicans - including Californians of Mexican descent, called Californios - in addition to about 20,000 Native Americans and only 2,000 Yankee frontiersmen, soldiers, and settlers.

In the next two years, thousands upon thousands of Easterners who might never have thought about migrating to such a remote territory would pour into the region. By 1850, there were more than 100,000 immigrants.

North Dakota has a 2.17% population growth; California went from a frontier to a population that qualified for admission into the union in a span of two years. I think this shows how migration is not superior now than it was then.

Back then, people migrated with literally nothing, and many, many people plain did not make it. When they got to CA, there was no social support and many, again, starved or were forced into very harsh migrant camps, etc. You are talking about people with whom I grew up and their descendents, so its a topic I know pretty well. (note, I graduated high school in CA, despite having lived here.. and in Central agricultural CA too boot!). That migration is, in fact a big reason why we have welfare now...and a big part of why the whole idea was not so controversial as folks like to assert today.

PLAYER57832 wrote:HOWEVER, giving people more money, which they will then spend, IS a very good way to boost the economy and pay more wages.... that, by=the-way is the dirty secret behind why there has been no serious reform to welfare and the like.. becuase too many businesses depend upon that money, either directly (grocers take food stamps just like cash, landlords are happy for a reliable section 8/HUD payment) and indirect (these subsidies allow employers to hire people for lower wages without huge protests).

Of course people earning more money through job changes or raises is helpful to the economy, but only if it's done in a free market system. When you use the government to mandate those raises, you're artificially increasing the cost of doing business, which means the businesses must inflate their prices in order to pay for those raises. Which ultimately means that people will end up only buying the things they were buying before the raise and you'll be demanding the government give them another pay raise. Stop inflation and you'll address the problems; raising minimum wage just exacerbates the problems.

Oh please , the bottom rungs have never been subject to the free market. They take the leavings becuase they have no other choice. AND, the biggest point, the one you and BBS keep insisting is not real is that these people are only surviving because they are being subsidized by the rest of us who pay taxes. (and before you start.. yes, we DO pay taxes)

IN fact, mandating that companies pay a minimum wage IS requiring a free market.. it is simply saying that businesses have to pay workers what they really need, instead of expecting the government to pick up the extra tab so they can fill their stockholder checks more fully.

Besides, most Americans reject the idea that we should live in a society where people who don't get degrees can just go live on the street... something you seem to think is perfectly OK (oh.. wait, you think there are all kinds of imaginary well-paid jobs out there just for the taking )

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:There is a world of difference between a professional looking for a new professional job, with nationwide contacts and a low wage worker with no contacts trying for just about any job to pay the rent. Your insistance that the abilities of each is the same or that someone not being of the professional class means its prefectly OK for them to just live on the street... which IS what would happen if government assistance were cut.

Actually, you're the one who wants to insist that they are the same by using the government to mandate wages. Jobs aren't equal, so it's not the government's job to equal out the pay. There will always be jobs that pay a small amount because they are for people who just need part time work and don't need specialized skills. Legislating those jobs away through artificial pay increases only harms the economy and everybody of every wage.

Oh bull, mandating the MINIMUM is in no way mandating that all people be paid equal. Try some honesty for a change. If you think mandating that people getting paid enough to just survive when they actually work 40 hours or more a week is somehow going to take away from more educated people earning more.. then you don't have much confidence in any kind of industry period. You are just happy continuing in a welfare society under the pretense of it being some kind of "free market"

Besides, like I said above, the only reason these companies CAN pay so little is that we provide governemnt subsidies to people who work, not just those who cannot work.

and again.. no, simply cutting off that aid is not the answer. Putting millions of people on the street, starving is not what made our country great.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:You like to pick on me,

That's only because you keep complaining about how tough you have it and how you have to rely on the government to mandate that everyone else take care of you. Maybe if you relied on yourself and your family to take care of yourselves instead of using the government to mandate that I provide for you, we wouldn't have this problem. Why do others have to work to provide for both themselves and you?

Oh bull... looks like you are doing a lot more whining here. You seem to think that anyone getting even a penny more for actual work means your check will somehow be diminished. THAT is a pretty sad state of affairs.

You like to pretend I am acting the victim because it suits your worldview, even though I have never put myself up as a victim, though I do bring my examples in to refute your idiotic claims... becuase my data DOES refute your claims. Refuting your ideas of he who earns more automatically deserves it and other garbage is not "playing the victim", its expresing reality. Denying reality does not make it go away.

That's only because you keep complaining about how tough you have it and how you have to rely on the government to mandate that everyone else take care of you. Maybe if you relied on yourself and your family to take care of yourselves instead of using the government to mandate that I provide for you, we wouldn't have this problem. Why do others have to work to provide for both themselves and you?

Because from PLAYER's perspective a life of not having the state coerce others' into giving her and her family additional income is not fair. To her, it's justified because she/her family have some genetic problem which makes their insurance/medical bills relatively more expensive than other people's. Of course, she'll buff out that coercion with an invisible social contract and wax it with a good helping of Redistributive Justice.

(She may change tactics since I mentioned this regular angle of hers, so let's see what happens).

Once again, I obviously put forward some truth... because whenever I seriously challenge your lauded ideas, you descend to insults instead of just acknowledging you could be incorrect.

That's only because you keep complaining about how tough you have it and how you have to rely on the government to mandate that everyone else take care of you. Maybe if you relied on yourself and your family to take care of yourselves instead of using the government to mandate that I provide for you, we wouldn't have this problem. Why do others have to work to provide for both themselves and you?

Because from PLAYER's perspective a life of not having the state coerce others' into giving her and her family additional income is not fair. To her, it's justified because she/her family have some genetic problem which makes their insurance/medical bills relatively more expensive than other people's. Of course, she'll buff out that coercion with an invisible social contract and wax it with a good helping of Redistributive Justice.

(She may change tactics since I mentioned this regular angle of hers, so let's see what happens).

Once again, I obviously put forward some truth... because whenever I seriously challenge your lauded ideas, you descend to insults instead of just acknowledging you could be incorrect.

PLAYER57832 wrote:IN fact, mandating that companies pay a minimum wage IS requiring a free market.. it is simply saying that businesses have to pay workers what they really need, instead of expecting the government to pick up the extra tab so they can fill their stockholder checks more fully.

You keep mentioning stockholders. In fact a significant number of people who pay people the minimum wage are small individually owned businesses; the guy who runs the local hobby store; the family that runs the local diner and so forth. In 2006, the biggest sector of people making minimum wages was "Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations" (11M in US) and the second biggest was "Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations" (4M) followed by "Personal Care and Service Occupations" (3M).

patches70 wrote:Of course, there are too many people who rely on such a system to keep power and use that power

THIS is the baseline problem we're seeing in America and various parts of the world, just like it was the baseline problem that had the original tea-partiers throwing tea into the ocean and beginning a revolution.

patches70 wrote:Too many are too comfortable and too familiar with their chains.....

In part. And part is, unlike the Revolutionary War, it's a lot harder to distinguish whom to revolt against.

patches70 wrote:to keep the rest of us divided enough to never amass the support, knowledge and wisdom to finally throw off the shackles of economic slavery.

This is also partly true; the truest part is keeping the rest divided.

But the way the world is based now, how would someone throw off the shackles of economic slavery? "Communes" tried in the 60s, but those, too, became corrupted.

stahrgazer wrote:But the way the world is based now, how would someone throw off the shackles of economic slavery? "Communes" tried in the 60s, but those, too, became corrupted.

You miss the point, I'm not talking about hippies wanting to experiment with different social systems, I'm talking about the underlying unit of measurement that is used to determine what value an individual's time and sweat are worth.You are too young to remember, not taught in general, about the different currency systems used in the past.

I've talked plenty about it already, but we currently used a debt based currency. Our currency isn't money, it's debt. That is the thing that many don't understand. Money being debt is not the original intent of what money was invented for. The original purpose of money has been corrupted to the point that most people don't even have the faintest clue of what our currency is.

There is no reason at all, that is beneficial for society, that has our currency when created is required to be paid back at interest. This system only benefits the people who create the money in the first place, the central banks.

Government and central banks are willing partners with each other. But it was not always this way in the US. In our history the money power has changed hands between the people and the central banks at least eight times. We are told, and many believe, that we require a central bank to control inflation, protect the currency, create employment and price stability.The Fed was sold that if created then things like recessions and depressions wouldn't happen or would be very rare. All this has proven false. The creation of the central bank has only made it so that such things as depressions and recessions are engineered.

The "business cycle" is not a natural phenomenon. It is a consequence of monetary policy and we were warned about it from the very beginning by the Founders.But this system we have is the only system most of you know, but we have had debt free currency and we had it for a long time. The last of the Greenbacks were taxed out of existence back in the early 1990's. Debt based currency systems always eventually collapse. They are unstable.

And this currency is the foundation of everything. An unstable foundation that must be correct before there is any chance at all to have lasting corrections of all the problems caused by such a system. The sooner that is understood, the better chance we all have later when our current system inevitably collapses. If we don't know any better then what will replace it will simply be yet another form of debt based currency and we just begin the whole cycle all over again.This is a scam that has been going on for over 1,000 years.

When people begin understanding exactly what our currency is and how it comes into existence, we see clearly just how sublime and fraudulent the whole thing is.

The debt based currency system has it's pros, it's possible to allocate goods and services with only a fraction of actual currency circulating. But the cons are ignored, or dismissed when talking about the social consequences that come about due to the flaws in the system. The instability of the system will rise up, it can only be delayed, and only for a time. This current system is in it's death throes. It has happened before in history, it will continue to happen so long as the real money power is in the hands of but a small group of individuals. Such power is too tempting, too corrupt to last. Misery ensues.

One would be wise to research and understand how it is that money is created and then understand how that affects everything else that uses that currency.There is no moral or ethical excuse that justifies putting unborn generations into debt we spend today. None at all. But this system does exactly that, as it was designed. And now the bill is coming due, and we haven't a clue what to do about it. We were warned, we chose to ignore those warnings. We get what we deserve.

And all the while, instead of contemplating on that underlying facet of society (our currency), we point fingers at each other saying- "It's your fault!" and never spend even a moment of time wondering about the absurdity of the actual system itself. The money powers laugh at us, and rightly so. We are but fools that can't see the simple truth even if it smacks us in the face.

Fixing the debt based currency system is but the first step, but it must be done first. Otherwise, all that can be done is defer some of the pain now for the promise of greater pain later.

PLAYER57832 wrote:IN fact, mandating that companies pay a minimum wage IS requiring a free market.. it is simply saying that businesses have to pay workers what they really need, instead of expecting the government to pick up the extra tab so they can fill their stockholder checks more fully.

You keep mentioning stockholders. In fact a significant number of people who pay people the minimum wage are small individually owned businesses; the guy who runs the local hobby store; the family that runs the local diner and so forth. In 2006, the biggest sector of people making minimum wages was "Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations" (11M in US) and the second biggest was "Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations" (4M) followed by "Personal Care and Service Occupations" (3M).

Yes, but these are not the people setting the market stage.

But note, that some of the biggest corporations in the country are involved in those occupations you name above. Those statistics really do nothing at all to dispute what I said. Also, personal care occupations are not even subject to the minimum wage. The person you hire through a temp agency to care for your elderly mother or disabled relative might not even be making $7 an hour!

Those who struggled through university to graduate with a valuable degree, demonstrating a measure of self control (saying "no" to constant partying) are making more than those who failed to do likewise (speaking generally of course, as exceptions always can be found).

Those who did not seek out education beyond a high school diploma or a GED, at university, tech school, what have you, will make exactly what they are worth.

Artificially raising the value of their unskilled labor, as has been discussed at great length already, hurts pretty much everybody - even those it is meant (or at least meant to appear) to assist.

Nobunaga wrote:We make what we deserve to make. That's all there is to it.

No. Deserve has little to do with it. You make a fair wage, you can pay your mortgage, bills, food, a little bit of entertainment and even put some of that money away in savings. Along comes the central bank and through monetary policy devalues the currency you are paid in. Now, still making that same wage, you can pay your mortgage, bills, food and put a little bit away, but you have to cut back on the entertainment.More dollar destruction comes along. You get a raise but it doesn't keep up with inflation.Now you can pay your mortgage, bills, food, but you've cut out virtually all entertainment and aren't able to save.More dollar destruction.Now you can pay your mortgage, bills, but you have no entertainment, no savings, and have to be frugal with your food costs.More devaluation.Now you struggle to pay your mortgage, have to be selective in the bills you pay. To get food on the table your spouse has to enter the workforce and what used to be a fair wage and got you everything you needed all by yourself, now it takes two people. The children are now being raised by the public schools, left alone and don't have the positive influence from the parents as much as they used to, which leads to problems.

This is the plight of the average family from 1970 until today and it's all because of dollar devaluation. The devaluation comes as a way to pay our debts. Inflate the debt away, the most insidious tax, the hidden tax. Insidious because it steals your time, the one thing that is the most valuable thing a person has, time.

Currency is a representation of time. It's a fact, there was a time when a family could get by on the income of a single parent and get along just fine. Not anymore. And that leads to other problems. We have to work more and more, sacrifice more and more of our time, and for what? We aren't getting anything more than we used to.

Nobunaga wrote:Those who struggled through university to graduate with a valuable degree, demonstrating a measure of self control (saying "no" to constant partying) are making more than those who failed to do likewise (speaking generally of course, as exceptions always can be found).

This is true enough, the grasshopper suffers while the ant thrives.

Nobunaga wrote:Artificially raising the value of their unskilled labor, as has been discussed at great length already, hurts pretty much everybody - even those it is meant (or at least meant to appear) to assist.

Artificially raising the value of unskilled labor is not nearly as great a problem as artificially lower the value of our currency.

The price of goods when measured in other mediums than the dollar shows exactly the problem.

In 1970 the price of bread was 36 cents. An ounce of gold was $36.02. You could buy almost three loaves of bread for a dollar. You could buy 100 loaves of bread with an ounce of gold.

Today, a dollar won't buy you even a single loaf of bread, but an ounce of gold will buy you some 700+ loaves of bread. Gold hasn't become more valuable, the currency we use have decreased in value. The price of bread has decreased, it's gotten cheaper, but not in currency. This is the case with everything we buy. Since we get paid in currency, our ability to purchase things suffers. The devaluation of our currency is faster than the amount of pay increases we get. If you attempt to pay your employees in gold, you'd be arrested and thrown in prison. Thus the supremacy of this currency which is under the control of a small group of people is maintained. Through force.

When we compare the costs of things we buy, anything, if you compare side by side using debt based currency on the one hand, and virtually any other commodity on the other, you'd find that the cost of almost everything has actually decreased. As it should, at this time in our history never has the human race been so productive as we are now.

But we get paid in that currency that is forever and always being destroyed. Destroyed not for the benefit of the average person, but for the benefit of a select few at the detriment of everyone else and future generations. Too few understand this, but those that do will thrive. For everyone else, we are doomed to a continuing decrease in the amount of time we have to pursue those things which bring us fulfillment. It is economic slavery and is the exact opposite the purpose of money. And it is the true root of our problems in society.

How many are truly economically free? Very few as it stands now and it's only getting worse.

But truly, even though it's bad now, if one is wise they can still prosper. Get out of debt, stay out of debt, use your money wisely even though it's an ever decreasing value, and one will be fine. Unfortunately, too few really understand how to actually do this. And we suffer for it. One would do well to be a net producer than a net consumer. The net consumer is destined to end up in the poorhouse no matter what, and that trip is merely hastened when the currency is constantly being debased.

Incidently; in a free market we get paid based on the value we create (or sometimes what value we can leverage); no more, no less. It has nothing to do with what we "deserve", or what is "fair" or any such nonsense.

While having a minimum wage does all the evil things the right-minded folk insist it does; they often forget it enables those who create vast social value, but little economic value to actually survive.

Incidently; in a free market we get paid based on the value we create (or sometimes what value we can leverage); no more, no less. It has nothing to do with what we "deserve", or what is "fair" or any such nonsense.

While having a minimum wage does all the evil things the right-minded folk insist it does; they often forget it enables those who create vast social value, but little economic value to actually survive.

Nobunaga wrote:We make what we deserve to make. That's all there is to it.

Said the bulldog to the boy working in the coal pits.

You're witty, though not a lot of boys working in coal pits these days. Coal is evil anyway - we've learned that, right, what with the carbon and all? ...

If you see what you believe is an error, point it out. Or you agree but just cannot admit it?

Yeah, I was trying to lead a horse to water.

MY POINT IS THAT IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. There is no moral way you can objectify people and say that they only make the amount of money that they deserve. NS would try to, Tzor maybe too. But Jesus wouldn't. But your argument was literally the same one that the mine bosses used themselves to try to prevent the miners from unionizing. And they even used it before children were taken out of mines. That's labor history, son. If people earned income based on what they deserved, there would be a lot more people with higher salaries and a lot of politicians and bankers who wouldn't earn a cent. And if the miners hadn't organized, then there would still be mine barons dominating the American West and the Heartland. You're just espousing a simple one liner that sounds pretty, but lacks critical thinking, and one that also completely ignores American history. Unionized African Americans in this country earn about $185 more per week than non-union African Americans. Is it because joining a union means you deserve more? No. BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT f-ing SIMPLE.

Also, no, there's no such thing as clean coal. I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe that when we destroy this planet God will give us a fresh one. Coal should go.

Nobunaga wrote:We make what we deserve to make. That's all there is to it.

Said the bulldog to the boy working in the coal pits.

You're witty, though not a lot of boys working in coal pits these days. Coal is evil anyway - we've learned that, right, what with the carbon and all? ...

If you see what you believe is an error, point it out. Or you agree but just cannot admit it?

Yeah, I was trying to lead a horse to water.

MY POINT IS THAT IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. There is no moral way you can objectify people and say that they only make the amount of money that they deserve. NS would try to, Tzor maybe too. But Jesus wouldn't. But your argument was literally the same one that the mine bosses used themselves to try to prevent the miners from unionizing. And they even used it before children were taken out of mines. That's labor history, son. If people earned income based on what they deserved, there would be a lot more people with higher salaries and a lot of politicians and bankers who wouldn't earn a cent. And if the miners hadn't organized, then there would still be mine barons dominating the American West and the Heartland. You're just espousing a simple one liner that sounds pretty, but lacks critical thinking, and one that also completely ignores American history. Unionized African Americans in this country earn about $185 more per week than non-union African Americans. Is it because joining a union means you deserve more? No. BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT f-ing SIMPLE.

Also, no, there's no such thing as clean coal. I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe that when we destroy this planet God will give us a fresh one. Coal should go.

Unionized workers of any color tend to make quite a bit more than their non-union counterparts. Why did you bring up black union members specifically? Is the difference greatest among them?

Let me explain what I mean by "deserve". Those who went to college and studied something salable are more likely to earn more than those who go to university to study "the Classics", Art History, Graphic Design, etc... They made the choice of their major and so deserve the rewards that later came with it. Those who make the decision to push on through grad school will earn yet more (again, with a salable field of study).

Similarly, a high school dropout who later pursues his GED has the ability to earn more than one who does not. He will (statistically) earn the rewards for his efforts. Those who choose to attend a trade school of some kind will vastly improve their earning potential.

As for unions, seeking employment with a unionized company is also a choice, and one reaps the rewards for that choice. I meant no attack on unions in this thread, as much as I despise what they do to companies and to people.

Player's about to show up and talk about mothers, victims of corporate greed, working 2 jobs for minimum wage to feed four kids, etc... Well, in most cases her circumstances will be the result of her own decisions (possible exception being the death of primary breadwinner), and so she will "get what she deserves". She didn't pursue further education and she couldn't keep her knees together, so now she's saddled with 4 children who need her support... and the best she can do is manual labor someplace, or working as a waitress, or both. She gets what she deserves.

Opportunity exists for everyone. Those opportunities will not be equal - some inner city kid who grows up on welfare assistance with parents who would rather drink, smoke and watch TV than work, is unlikely to see the same array of opportunities as a kid who grows up with money, granted. But the choices that kid makes within his own world will determine what he deserves.

Some people like bananas. I think this thread is plantains ... not yet ripe enough.

Juan_Bottom wrote:MY POINT IS THAT IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. There is no moral way you can objectify people and say that they only make the amount of money that they deserve. NS would try to, Tzor maybe too. But Jesus wouldn't.

I don't think that is my point. If I hadn't made my point clear it is that you can't simply legislate happiness; you can't force others to do things without significant amounts of unintended consequences and sometimes these consequences are, in fact, intended by people who want to not let a crisis go to waste for their own personal gain.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Also, no, there's no such thing as clean coal. I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe that when we destroy this planet God will give us a fresh one. Coal should go.

A team of researchers at Ohio State University (OSU) spent the past 2 years developing a clean way of harnessing the power of coal and have recently found great success in their research scale combustion system. The team is now able to harness clean coal energy chemically without combustion with air, while capturing 99% of the carbon dioxide produced from the reaction. With the next stage in testing on the horizon, could this possibly be the future of coal?

Nobunaga wrote:We make what we deserve to make. That's all there is to it.

Those who struggled through university to graduate with a valuable degree, demonstrating a measure of self control (saying "no" to constant partying) are making more than those who failed to do likewise (speaking generally of course, as exceptions always can be found).

I see, so according to you Stephen Hildebrand is just a much more worthy person, a better worker, more intelligent than any of his world-reknown professors (literally.. )?

Nobunaga wrote:Those who did not seek out education beyond a high school diploma or a GED, at university, tech school, what have you, will make exactly what they are worth.

Artificially raising the value of their unskilled labor, as has been discussed at great length already, hurts pretty much everybody - even those it is meant (or at least meant to appear) to assist.

And what of those who have those and still wind up doing unskilled labor. And note, in biology, publication is considered a hallmark of succes, so according to that theory no published scientist should be out of work unless there were some issue like breaking the law or just not doing work, etc.

Instead, we have teachers making less than owners of McDonald's franchises.. MUCH less. Sorry, but teachers contribute a lot more to society than any McDonald's does.

You are a prime example of the saying "pursuit of money is the root of all evil"... and note, it is not money, it is pursuit of money and thinking that its accumulation represents a true measure of worth.

Nobunaga wrote:[ Player's about to show up and talk about mothers, victims of corporate greed, working 2 jobs for minimum wage to feed four kids, etc... Well, in most cases her circumstances will be the result of her own decisions (possible exception being the death of primary breadwinner), and so she will "get what she deserves". She didn't pursue further education and she couldn't keep her knees together, so now she's saddled with 4 children who need her support... and the best she can do is manual labor someplace, or working as a waitress, or both. She gets what she deserves.

You are making a LOT of false assumptions.

I am a published scientist. My data, publication and several methodologies I developed or helped develop are still used today. no not going to prove it. I don't give out my real identity here, but it is the truth. I lost my job due to government cutbacks, not any fault of my own. Again.. not going to prove it, but there are plenty of people like me to challenge your oh so perfect ideas that you think are true without verification.

Besides, having or not having kids is irrelevant to work skills.. or should be. It is if you happen to be a man!

I am a tad unusual in that I wound up living in the State of PA which has decided to utterly ignore almost all natural fish reproduction in favor of mining mitigation -- the one area with which I am not familiar. I also live in a state where just one credit costs over $700. CREDIT, not class, and where married women are essentially excluded from financial aid, even loans, unless absolutely destitute.

If I were, as you claim saddled with 4 kids needing my sole support... I would get a free educational ticket. OR, if I simply divorced my husband instead of staying legally married, I would be eligible for multitudes of support.

Thirdly, I DID have some options, but they involved either leaving my husband or putting my son into substandard care. If you think putting my kids first is a sign of a deficite in my character and a sign of "failure"' well, that speaks multitudes about you, and none of it positive.

Thirdly, the only assistance we have evern gotten is a WIC check (roughly $30-$40 of food a month), and medical assistance beginning when my husband was laid off. BUT... given that he has over 30 years as a volunteer firefighter and that I have volunteered in floods, hurricanes and teaching first aid/CPR for free, I don't consider that a horrible taking of other people's money. I and my husband EACH contribute far more to this country than most people. (and that is without getting into numerous other things we do.. such as my husband spending many, many hours coaching and being an unofficial social worker to many young men in this community)

Oh, and here are a few other facts to consider. Not ONE of my professors was aware of my high SAT scores. They knew the SAT scores of all their male students, but only found out mine when I pointed them out, and that was after they had already decided to exclude me from certain classes because I would not be able to handle them. Saying "oh you should have just faught" is a bit naive considering I was on full scholarship at the time and a naive college student.

Here is another bit. I work with 8 women, all over 50, all who make less than $10 an hour. I also work with a couple of young college students, studying science. (I am avoiding being more specific, again, to avoid identification). The topic of math and statistics came up. Every one of the older women at the table dismissed it with "oh, too complicated". Guess what, I proceeded to explain a couple of basic ideas (How calculus derivatives work, etc.) only I did not tell them what i was doing.. I pretended this was a new kind of cooking type formula. They all understood, though they were puzzled over the application. (how it would help them, that is).

When you dismiss everyone who doesn't get a degree as a "failure" you dismiss a lot of knowledge, pretend that there is not a massive amount of work out there that needs doing but for which there is no or are few handy degrees. If you want to make that abundantly clear, then just go spend some time on a farm.. except, oh yeah.. you seem to think food just comes magically into your basket or that some kind of economic trick is all that is necessary to make sure that acres and acres of farmland every year stay in production instead of being polluted, dried up or turned into development.